Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Have the wheels come off the Boris bus?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    People change their mind.
    Some people will say/write anything to be (re)elected…

    There's little mystery there, when he wanted to be elected London Mayor he defended the pov.s needed for that , now he wanted to be PM likewise…

    Johnson doesn't give a flying fig either way, as long people vote for him, we'll see if it works next election


    High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

    Comment


    • #92
      Plenty of worthy posts in this thread, and I will address them all when time allows, but for now, I'll respond to the Honorable Gentleman from Scotland.

      Originally posted by the ace View Post

      No, there's a fundamental difference at work here;

      Scotland and England entered a Union of Equals voluntarily (this is why Scotland maintains separate legal and educational systems to this day) the partnership is more like a marriage than the relations between the various states, and each CAN make decisions for the other (it's just that the traffic tends to go the other way).
      I never suggested that Scotland was subordinate to England in the Union that is the United Kingdom. If anything both Scotland and England are subordinate to the UK -- or rather, both England and Scotland have been subsumed and their respective political distinctiveness obliterated into an all-emcompassing union. Granted, Scotland did keep her unique legal procedures and the like, but since the Sottish parliament essentially dissolved itself in 1707, for political purposes, both Scotland and England ceased being distinct political entities each with its own measure of sovereignty. From 1707 until the establishment of a Scottish legislature more recently, all sovereignty was invested in a single monarchy, and one parliament, representing all subjects, from England and Scotland both. This is NOT representative of any petty desire on my part to belittle contemporary Scottish nationalism of Scottish sovereignty, but simply my layman's interpretation of legal fact. That being the case, no Scottish institution, like a Scottish court, can hold jurisdiction over any branch of the national government. If we hold as inviolable the mathematical truth that an addend can not be greater than the sum, then it stands to reason that a constituent can not be greater than the union of which it is a member. Scotland can not be greater than or equal to the United Kingdom, and Scottish courts have no standing to hear cases arising from conflicts within the national Parliament at Westminster.

      The defense rests . . . .
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

        Well he was in favour of the single market before he was opposed to it, that's hardly unusual for that lot

        https://www.businessinsider.nl/boris...onal=true&r=US




        As long he can sell it to his electorate no one cares…..
        As he checks to make sure his toupee hasn't also reversed...
        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • #94
          By now the lunch of Jucker and Johnson has concluded, they have issued a similar statement each, confirming their mutual commitment have another lunch sometime around noon next week.

          In the run-up to the EU conference of Oct. 17 the having of lunches will be yet intensified
          High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
            By now the lunch of Jucker and Johnson has concluded, they have issued a similar statement each, confirming their mutual commitment have another lunch sometime around noon next week.

            In the run-up to the EU conference of Oct. 17 the having of lunches will be yet intensified
            So the cunning plan is to get Juncker to sign something when he is drunk? May work.
            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
              That being the case, no Scottish institution, like a Scottish court, can hold jurisdiction over any branch of the national government. If we hold as inviolable the mathematical truth that an addend can not be greater than the sum, then it stands to reason that a constituent can not be greater than the union of which it is a member. Scotland can not be greater than or equal to the United Kingdom, and Scottish courts have no standing to hear cases arising from conflicts within the national Parliament at Westminster.
              The Courts simply determine if the PM acted legally. In the case of the Scottish Court it referred the case to the UK Supreme Court. The function of any Supreme Court is to interpret and safeguard the Constitution. That is all they are doing. The accusation that the courtis interfering in politics is nonsense. It is simply doing its job.
              "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
              validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
              "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                If we hold as inviolable the mathematical truth that an addend can not be greater than the sum, then it stands to reason that a constituent can not be greater than the union of which it is a member. Scotland can not be greater than or equal to the United Kingdom, and Scottish courts have no standing to hear cases arising from conflicts within the national Parliament at Westminster.

                The defense rests . . . .
                The defence isn't resting it's in a coma seemingly

                An appellant court is by definition a higher court that one from which one can appeal. The decision by the Scottish high court was appealed to the Scottish appeal court which overturned the decision. Given that this results in a different decision in the Scottish Appeal Court than that in the English High court the whole thing is being referred to the British Supreme Court which is the only court in the land that can bind both England and Scotland. The Act of Union ensured that Scotland and England have different legal systems
                Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                  The defence isn't resting it's in a coma seemingly
                  Had me an English breakfast. That thing weighed me down like a lead zeppelin. Rimshot

                  Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                  An appellant court is by definition a higher court that one from which one can appeal. The decision by the Scottish high court was appealed to the Scottish appeal court which overturned the decision. Given that this results in a different decision in the Scottish Appeal Court than that in the English High court the whole thing is being referred to the British Supreme Court which is the only court in the land that can bind both England and Scotland. The Act of Union ensured that Scotland and England have different legal systems
                  And my point is that 1) no Scottish court has jurisdiction over Westminster -- the parliamentary institution representing the whole of the UK, not the London borough; 2) no lower court in Scotland or in England has jurisdiction over matters of parliamentary procedure, which this prorogue issue is. Any lower court, when petitioned in this matter, should be obliged to recuse itself, for lack of jurisdiction.

                  Now I need me some curry, in order to clear the baffles of this English breakfast-slash-cement.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    Had me an English breakfast. That thing weighed me down like a lead zeppelin. Rimshot



                    And my point is that 1) no Scottish court has jurisdiction over Westminster -- the parliamentary institution representing the whole of the UK, not the London borough; 2) no lower court in Scotland or in England has jurisdiction over matters of parliamentary procedure, which this prorogue issue is. Any lower court, when petitioned in this matter, should be obliged to recuse itself, for lack of jurisdiction.

                    Now I need me some curry, in order to clear the baffles of this English breakfast-slash-cement.
                    The courts are not being asked to exercise jurisdiction over Parliament but over Boris who might have broken both English and Scottish law. HM is subject to both English and Scottish law as well - neither legal system is subordinate to the other.
                    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                      The courts are not being asked to exercise jurisdiction over Parliament but over Boris who might have broken both English and Scottish law
                      But Boris was acting in his capacity as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not some average citizen at large. Consequently, no lower court, no regional court, can exercise jurisdiction over his actions as PM.

                      Probable off-topic question: why hasn't devolution come to England? Why doesn't England establish its own council a la Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland?
                      Last edited by slick_miester; 16 Sep 19, 13:00. Reason: I had another thought
                      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                        But Boris was acting in his capacity as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not some average citizen at large. Consequently, no lower court, no regional court, can exercise jurisdiction over his actions as PM.
                        By the look of things, something that might be judged legal in England, might still be deemed illegal in Scotland. Either way, the PM should be expected to exercise due diligence to not be engaged in something like that in either place. Not doing so might interfere with his ability to exercise the office in parts of the union. English and Scottish courts at loggerheads over the PM should perhaps be considered a constitutional crisis?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Johan BanÚr View Post
                          By the look of things, something that might be judged legal in England, might still be deemed illegal in Scotland. Either way, the PM should be expected to exercise due diligence to not be engaged in something like that in either place. Not doing so might interfere with his ability to exercise the office in parts of the union. English and Scottish courts at loggerheads over the PM should perhaps be considered a constitutional crisis?
                          In his capacity as prime minister, can Sweden's PM commit an act that is legal in Stockholm but illegal in ┼re? Is that even plausible?
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                            In his capacity as prime minister, can Sweden's PM commit an act that is legal in Stockholm but illegal in ┼re? Is that even plausible?
                            Of course not, but then Sweden it's not the United Kingdom of Sweden and ┼re. It also has a properly codified constitution.

                            Frankly in what way could you even begin to think ┼re comparable to Scotland?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Johan BanÚr View Post
                              Of course not, but then Sweden it's not the United Kingdom of Sweden and ┼re. It also has a properly codified constitution.

                              Frankly in what way could you even begin to think ┼re comparable to Scotland?
                              They're both really, really out of the way. . . . To be honest, I only know of ┼re 'cause it's Hankie's hometown. Otherwise I'd have never heard of it. . . . .

                              My point is that a provincial or regional authority in any country imaginable has not the jurisdiction to hear cases concerning the national government. Scotland's government represents a region and a people who are members of the British Union, aka the United Kingdom. Scotland's institutions can not be equal to or greater than the UK's Parliament. Therefore no Scottish court has jurisdiction over the UK's parliamentary procedural conflicts. It's really just common sense: something that was banned in the UK upon Clement Atlee's residence at 10 Downing Street apparently.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                                But Boris was acting in his capacity as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not some average citizen at large. Consequently, no lower court, no regional court, can exercise jurisdiction over his actions as PM.
                                Yes thoses court can, because unlike US Constition, British Constitution is made of common law which fall under High Courts juridiction. Both English and Scottish courts stated that prorogation was outside judiciary review not that PM was not abide by law.

                                "Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)

                                Case ID: UKSC 2019/0193

                                Case summary

                                Issue(s)

                                1. Whether the challenge to the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is justiciable in the courts.
                                2. Whether the appeal is in any event academic, given Parliamentary sittings before the UK’s exit from the EU on 31 October 2019?
                                3. If the appeal is justiciable, whether the Prime Minister’s advice was lawful.
                                Facts

                                The Inner House held that the issue of prorogation was, in the circumstances, justiciable. When the reasons for the prorogation that has occurred were considered they demonstrated that the true reason for the prorogation was to reduce the time for Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit and thus prevent Parliament from performing its central role in scrutinising Government action. Judgment appealed

                                2019] CSOH 70"

                                https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0193.html

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X